THE LAND QUESTION.

Woodville Examiner, Volume 3, Issue 251, 9 April 1886, Page 2

THE LAND QUESTION.

[To tiik Enrroi:, Sut, —I have read with interest your leading articles of the sth and 2drd March, and the correspondence which has ensued. I have always had grave doubts as to whether those, who appear so deeply interested in suppressing vice and misery, and raising man’s social state, are applying (or endeavoring to apply) a remedy for the commercial and social sickness of earth, which, even if it can be made to overcome opposing forces and taking effect on the patient, will result in a cure. I be- t believe thatlthose would-be philanthropists have not-gone to the root of the evil, and have therefore overlooked the real difficulties of the situation. I have therefore resolved to lay before your readers a few fragments of the ideas which have occurred to me in following another line of thought. If these ideas arc fallacies then let your readers critisise the them. —I am, &c., Truth.] The question of the day we arc informed on all sides, is The Land Question! I take it that, when so told, we are told erroneously. The question of the day is II How to suppress vice and misery, and raise man’s social slate.” It is alleged that a more equal distribution of land is a remedy, and the only remedy. Let mo ask if all those who are in a state of need wore granted comfortable incomes, would they want more land than enough for a house site ? I think not. The land itself is not the end of these agitations but a redistribution of land, it is contended, is the only means to the end—the attainment , 1 of a higher social state. That people generally should have so mistaken the means for the end is due, I take it, almost entirely to the press, sometimes honest in its ignorant advocacy, of a supposed ; cause, hut too often disseminating at the i instance of an unscrupulous politician the ; germs of party jealousy .and animosity, : imaginary wrongs alleged to be’inflicted ! on the poor by the wealthy, and other kindred notions, the outconu of small , minds and despicable natures. But -the confiding public cannot see the credit-side of journalists’ cash books, and as every man must be held innocent until the contrary is shown, we must prosuaqe that journalists and others, advocating the “ peaceful revolution ” are educating the . people honestly, and if wrongly, then ignorantly. I have every respect for the writer who approaches his question reasonably, advocates his view of it vigorously, yet dispassionately aqil logically,, but I have r>u patience with the usual mode of asking public support, which is unfortunately by appealing nut so much j to the reason as to the toolings of the reader. The writers of such articles moreover, are usually ingenious enough to know that if a man’s oar and support arc wished, his sympathies must bo iirst enlisted, and ho is accordingly addressed on a subject which interests him deeply. ’ Suggest seriously to the poor man that you can enrich him, to the ambitions man that you can assist in satisfying his cravings, give to tlie man in domestic affliction the sympathies of your heart, j and these men drawn to you as it, were. ■ feel as if they rpglly drank of the “milkof human kindness.” Whither yea, would lead these men, apparently for their benefit, you will find them ready to follow. Now it is notably the ca.se, that the majorityjof those most interested in supporting the land “ expropriation ” scheme (as it is called), are comparatively poor men, aud,bNi.g!pvcr,tbcv hayo probably not had lho-6pp6rtuuiby ot i-ooeivii.g u better education than will see tliciu through the ordinary affairs of life.! Their strongest interest lies consequently in the direction of a change for the better. A strongly [ ; written article, therefore, full of bold

questions striking at those in a condition apparently wealthy, well interlarded with declamatory periods, italics, and notes of exclamation, and headed “ Emancipation from tlu* sla.’.cry of land monopolists,'’ “ Freedom at last for tin- p.,.0r,' ; or some such phrase, and generally suggestive to the poor, half-edncaied l eader that he is a highly injured iniivldnal, ,-utf ring mi ler Hie oppression of (lie opposite party in politics, is calculated to mislead into the political support of thus.; to further whose cuds it, is written, manv of those who are unhappily in a state that sadly wants bettering. Is that support legitimately obtained ? Men :ir e h'd_ aside hy their feelings, hut- hv their reason are led onward and upward. Logicians onejand all condemn an appeal to feelings as a fallacy, adopted only by those who hold views not sufliciemlV sound to stand on reason. I take it, that in these days no man ought to he treated as a mere creature of impulse, requiring as it were “ setting on ” to Ins political opponent like a|!ighting dog. The press is om» of the most powerful factors in determining the moral tone of the country, and is therefore responsible for the results of its teachings. M hero is the consistency of the p*ess which in one issue advocates the education ot the people, and in the next devotes itself to unmanly attacks on individuals ? Is tl 10 meaning of the word “educate” rightly apprehended? I fear not. It is not a loading out of the merely mechanical faculties which constitutes true education, but a leading out of man’s better and nobler nature, and consequently a repressing of those features of character, from the cultivation of which spring personal and party jealousies, personal and political bitterness and kindred vices—one and all festering sores in society. I believe there is no agent so powerful, and therefore none so solemnly responsible in the education of the people as the press. Hut too little attention is given to their true interests. How seldom do we see newspapers discussing fairly tlie question of frectrade anclfproteetion, or the different views ot political economists on the relation of wages and capital, or the effect of human nature on the state of society. I am of opinion that vice and miser} - are the result of varied human nature, and not of the unequal distribution of wealth and privilege, and this is what I shall now try to demonstrate. Hut first (though my previous remarks are more or less general), I shall discuss what the Woodvillk Examixkr seems to consider a iamlamental tenet! of belief in establishmg the land agitator’s case. The greatest good for the greatest number seems to he the end object of the Examixkk’s existence. I grant at once that this state of things Is what all ought to strive for, hut I do not grant that all professedly so striving are o i the right path. A Scotch herd met a tourist who enquired the distance to Selkirk. “There’s twa roads, gin yo gang the road yer gann its 21,000 miles, gin ye turn roon and gang hack, its a mile and a half” was the reply. The W.E. and its friends may possibly arrive at their Selkirk “ the greatest good, d 0.," after unnecessarily circumnavigating the political world. No one denies that the greatest good ought to prevail, but what is the greatest good is a matter of opinion. Now who are the best judgesof what is best for the greatest number, men of average or men of more than average intelligence ? It is clear that the more wisdom and intelligence a man possesses the more logically and soundly he can decide any question submitted to him. It is also a self evident proposition that men of more than average intelligence must constitute less than half the population of any given community. The majority iu numbers therefore does net necessarily comprise the majority in wisdom, T 1 Ami though what is best for the majority of’a community is clearly best for the whole, yet I (bulk it js plain that what, is best is not necessarily to he decided by the ‘majority in numbers, because, ask: shown above, the majority in numbers'docs not necessarily possess even average intelligence. Headers would, therefore, do well to he careful, not to attach too extended a meaning to the above and similar phrases. Further, people who hai e received only a meagre education arc less . likely to be competent judges of their own case than those more enlightened; and as the laud agitation has arisen in a great measure among those who are, comparatively speaking, poor, and have not had opportunities;forjeducatiou, they have been led (or rather misled) to attribute tbeir unhappy, condition to unfair practices among tbeir richer brethren, some of whom hold land in largo areas. They attribute, and as I shall endeavor to show erroneously, wealth to ownership of land, and to mmpossession of land, poverty. Perhaps I am bold in openly attacking ( the text of such an eminent writer as Henry George, but in doing so I offer a similar excuse to his in assailing the dicta of Mill, Adam Smith, and Hi canto. “Poverty and progress ” is written on the assumption that vice and misery spring, ‘ , from an unequal distribution of wealth and privilege. The dedication of that celebrated work runs as follows: “ To those who, seeing the vice and misery that spring from the unequal distribution of wealth and privilege, feel the possibility of a higher social state and would strive for its attainment.” The writer assumes that vice and misery are the children of the unequal distribution of we Ith and privilege, whereas I shall endeavour to show that they are brothers and sisters, nay further, that " vice and misery” arc actually comprehended in the term “ the unequal distribution of wealth and privilege.” Now I do not think George disputes that man is q free agent, but I think he assumes that all men are equal in thik world. If we believe the parable of the talents, we at once see that God ' looks on us as unequal. Will any reader say that all men are equil in their capacity for tilling the soil; for governjng a nation, or even fur exercising a sound , reason in matters concerning themselves ? Have all men equal advantages and op= portunitios, similar dispositions the same health, energy and brain power ? I contend that Henry George’s assumption is a gross fallacy and that though vice and misery accompany wealth and privilege, they are not the result of uneven distribution, but arc necessary incident, the" cause of the one being the cause of the other. Hotei-ring to wl.at I have already (Hid on men's natural 'inequalities, did it ever occur to you,' reader, ghat some commence life with a fortune'and end With UQthigg, and that some commence Jife With nothing and end‘with a fortune ? Did you ever casually observe the progress of any man or men through life and remark to yourself “ That man will" get on,” or “ That man will never do much.” On what did you base your judgment ? @u the unequal distribution of wealth and privilege, or the unequal distribution of natural abilities? Taken young men, one enters a merchants office on: a m&igre isaiafy, 1 but is steady, petsevering, and has a turn' for -btisriess. In time ho is promoted aud at length be - .

cnmcs a partner. He probably never had ambition to own more lnnsl than would hold his warehouse and office. Let us follow him a little further. He marries a judiciously chosen wife, and a family springs.up whose members inherit their parents health, vigor and natural abilities, and who in time follow in their father's footsteps. Take the other, perhaps he, in .addition to health and youth, has a substantial patrimony. He enjoys gay company and spends his money, indeed his natural disposition is more distributive ■** than accumulative (there are men of that nature.) He contracts bad habits, drinking, debauchery, gambling, _ and becomes a wreck. Perhaps early in life he marries, leading some unfortunate woman. to tho alter and misery. Himself diseased mentally and physically, he is the author of a weak-minded unhealthy progeny, born under the worst auspices—a miserable home —and they in turn go forth 'into the'jworld with a natural handicap, and, irrespective of tho unequal distribution of wealth and privilege, are doomed, -in the words of Henry George, to •'vice . and misery." How docs the unequal distribution of wealth and privilege affect cases like these ? Look around you reader 'rind ask why is A possessed of such wealth B of so much land, C so poor, and D so .miserable? This and this only is tho answer, " Natural ability aided by energy. .or abused, or natural inability- which ..nothing will effectually aid —in all cases tlie results of lives and dispositions of parents. If untold wealth were now "given to C and D in five years time they 'would be again poor and miserable, and the money once theirs would have filtered into the pockets of A's and B's. It is an indisputable fact that weaUh in this world is distributed according to brains, energy and opportunities. This life is a race, all run or may do so if they like, but all do not obtain a prize. If 10 start in a race and finish a tie the money is divided. But if there be a Ist, 2nd and 3rd, and only three prizes, seven of the tori have run in vain. It would be very absurd if the seven; because they had majority in numbers, should vote the Ist three out of their prizes and divide the money amongst themselves. Perhaps the Wooda-ille Examiner would argue that this would be the greatest good for the greatest number, and : the seven would exclaim " A Daniel come to judgment \ yea a Daniel! 0 wise young judge how 1 do honor thee !" but to revert. The fallacyof Henry George's work is that! he treats dissimilar collateral circumstances and coincidences the one as the cause of the other, instead of merely distinguishing them as different '. species of results from the same genus of cause. Wealth and poverty are not opposites, but the same thing in different degrees. One man would be rich on JdlOO R-year whileJanother'on the same income • -would be apparently starving. Poverty and vice will in my opinion prevail in this world until there is a higher menial . and religious culture of mankind. "When • ;: parents study to repress on themselves ths baser features of human nature, and cultivate the higher so that their children "' may (benefit by the transmission of and . ' influence'from these better qualities, then we shall be more likely* to have the greatest good for the greatest number. As it is, the cause of vice and misery, and . the cause of the unequal distribution of wealth and privilege, are identical—the unequal distribution of natural abilities. Is there anything in the world to prevent any person with sufficient energy and *> ability rising from the gutter to a peerage? Take Lord St. Leonards, the barber's boy, f: rising, aye, in conservative London, also Lord Kenyon, Earl Cairns, James Garfield who rose from log cabin to White House, Sir Henry Parkes from being an ' ' orange boy to the'first position in Now . —South Wales, Sir James Service formerly a tide waiter at Port Phillip. Then think of the sons, of many wealthy parents who are now little better than paupers ■ in these colonies, consider cases,like these and then say w r hat causes poverty and . progress. Do not these results depend on the srime cause ? If wealth is being less distributed and poverty becoming more !)revaleht, it simnly shows that too many niman beings lime Into this world not ■'•.*'gifted with sufficient ability to compete. «. Nature, obedient to the dictates of in- •-• judicious parents, has handicapped very ; many, too heavily for the race of life. ~' Land agitation is akin to communism and is an attempt to remedy the evil by illicit means. Education and education :only, when carried out sufficiently in its proper branches will emancipate mankind ! - from the .slavery of passion, vice, and misery, but education must be directed to a knowledge of human/nature. Mankind are slow to see their own faults, and political ''■' newspapers must flatter and not speak • plainly. When the land question is settled after perhaps years of strife and \ a revolution,imankindwillbe as degenerate as ever and commerce and society will still sicken under the incubus of perverted and abused human nature. Perhaps some of your, readers if they have not thought of these things will be able to locate the causes of vice and misery elsewhere than at the door of the landholder.